The Francoist construction in the form of a cross

The regional government of Extremadura has initiated a formal process to declare the Cruz de los Caídos in Cáceres a Heritage Site of Interest (Bien de Interés Cultural, BIC). This decision comes four months after the Ministry of Territorial Policy and Democratic Memory included the cross in its catalog of symbols opposed to democratic memory and ordered its removal. The move raises complex questions about how public authorities should handle monuments whose history is deeply intertwined with the political and memorial culture of Francisco Franco’s regime. The official documentation acknowledges that the cross was built during wartime, with inscriptions honoring Franco, in an urban setting “preconceived to glorify the regime.” It further states that its evaluation must be understood “disconnected from its original commemorative meaning.” The intention appears to protect the structure while severing its historical ties. The debate often frames itself in simplistic terms: destruction versus preservation; democratic memory versus historical heritage; a Francoist symbol versus a religious one. However, this framing obscures a more fundamental issue. To determine what should be done with a Cruz de los Caídos, it is not enough to examine how it currently stands. One must understand why, for what purpose, and within what context it was constructed. This distinction lies at the heart of the controversy surrounding the Cáceres cross. Historical confusion frequently underpins the discussion: many assume that the cross is primarily a religious monument, with Francoist elements added later and potentially removable without altering its essential nature. But historical records tell a different story. The Cruces de los Caídos were part of a distinct type of monumental architecture shaped by the cultural and memorial policies of Francoism. Although their cruciform shape aligned with traditional religious iconography, their inclusion in such structures was not incidental or secondary. The cross was conceived as the central element around which the entire commemorative composition was organized. Documents preserved in the General Archive of Administration confirm that, in numerous design proposals, the cross was presented as the guiding theme of the monument, “the central motif,” “the core idea of the composition,” wrote the architects themselves, rather than merely as a support for later detachable plaques. The form of the monument and its political function formed a unified language of remembrance. The ultimate aim is not to erase the past, but to prevent the dictatorship from silently shaping the hierarchy of current memories. Francoist constructions deliberately adopted a religious form because national Catholicism had transformed the union of politics and religion into one of its key tools of legitimacy. The cross allowed the regime to sanctify the victory of its supporters, frame the Spanish Civil War as a providential enterprise, and turn the deaths of Franco's soldiers into sacrifice, martyrdom, and redemption. Therefore, it is historically inaccurate to reverse the process and claim that Francoism simply added politics to a previously neutral religious cross. Instead, the regime created politically charged monuments whose primary form was a cross. This distinction is crucial. When, decades later, certain plaques or emblems are removed, only a visible portion of the monument changes. Yet the history of its creation does not vanish. If removing a plaque could fundamentally alter the historical character of a monument, then any Francoist construction could be detached from its origins through a mere aesthetic adjustment. But history persists even when inscriptions are erased or replaced with others that include broader recognition.